[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:29:37 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:
=20
On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
=20
Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
High end audio community doesn't have a say so in submitting to real
=20
scientific scrutiny.
=20
=20
=20
What does this mean?
=20
=20
=20
It means that makers of high end equipment have no control over what
=20
scientists choose to test.
=20
=20
=20
That high-end audio enthusiats can't do things
=20
scientficially? because the priesthood will come and get them? Or
=20
for some other reason? That only real scientists can perform
=20
experiments?
=20
=20
=20
The bottom line is that legitimate science has clear cut standards
=20
and if the weekend warrior doesn't meet those standards then their
=20
tests are considered anecdotal
=20
=20
=20
By whom?

By actual scientists. Don't believe me? ask one. One of my best friends hap=
pens to be one. He has a PhD in molecular genetic biology and worked in the=
research field for many years as a research scientist. When I state that p=
eer review is the standard by which research is considered scientifically v=
alid or anecdotal and junk in the world of science I am pretty much quoting=
him.

=20
=20
=20
in nature and are junk in the world of real science and will never
=20
be added to the collective body of scientifically valid
=20
research. That is the reality of the situation. High end enthusiasts
=20
can do all the DBTs they want but until they are subjected to peer
=20
review they are junk in the eyes of real science.
=20
=20
=20
I don't see why, as long as they don't mess it up.

It doesn't matter if *you* don't see why. Sorry but I am going to side with=
the actual research scientists with whom I have discussed this topic exten=
sively on the topic of what science actually thinks of home brewed tests th=
at have not gone through the peer review process.


=20
=20
=20
It seems to me that you have a very old-fashioned idea about science.
=20
It's not something only available to "real scientists": those with
=20
special qualifications. Anyone can do it, as long as they're careful
=20
enough. The goal I'm talking about isn't to impress the priesthood,
=20
it's to find out what is true.

Again, I am going to take the word of actual real world scientists on this =
subject over yours. I have yet to find any scientist that considers tests t=
hat have not gone through the peer review process to be anything more than =
anecdotal.

=20
=20
=20
Besides that, more rigorous testing conditions aren't going to make
=20
reviews any worse, even if they're imperfect. A little bit of
=20
experimental control would inject a little reality.

History has shown us otherwise. Audio magazines have a really poor track r=
ecord when it comes to doing quality bias controlled tests.=20


=20
=20
=20
No: the whole point of science is that if an experiment is done
=20
properly the results will be valid no matter who does the experiment.
=20
=20
=20
Yeah , if it is done "properly." And science has a protocol for
=20
determining this. It's called peer review and if an experiment
=20
hasn't endured the peer review process it remains anecdotal and junk
=20
in the eyes of real science.
=20
=20
=20
Why does "the eyes of real science" matter?

It only matters if one wants to make claims in the name of science. If you =
want to do that then ya gots ta have the actual science to back it.=20

The goal I'm talking
=20
about is to inject a bit of honesty into audio reviewing. The Nobel
=20
Prize committee can wait.


I suggest you take a quick look at Howard Ferstler's attempt at doing so an=
d then tell me if you think it worked out.
=20
=20
=20
You don't even have to own a lab coat. All you have to do is not mess
=20
it up.
=20
=20
=20
And then actually subject it to peer review. Otherwise we don't know
=20
you didn't mess up.
=20
=20
=20
Again, it seems to me that you have a terribly old-fashioned attitude:
=20
that unless you can get published in the Proceedings of the Royal
=20
Society, it's not worth using a scientific approach. But people use
=20
science all the time when measuring things and making things and
=20
repairing things, and they don't expect to be peer-reviewed or
=20
published. They just want to know the truth.


No, it is not old fashioned. It is science. You can't have real science wit=
hout the rigors required by it. Without that you end up with things like co=
ld fusion and homeopathic medicine.
=20
=20
=20
By the way, the man you quote, J Gordon Holt was pretty much the
=20
inventor of subjective audio reviewing and never used DBTs in his
=20
protocols. he also reported hearing differences between cables and
=20
digital playback devices. Go figure....
=20
=20
=20
And he saw the light. Good for him.
=20
=20
=20
What light?
=20
=20
=20
See the quote...

I did. So he saw the light that cables do in fact sound different as well a=
s various digital playback gear as he reported over the years and never rec=
anted? OK if you say so.=20
=20
=20
=20
Finally, let me remark: if some of the claims that are made in the
=20
audio press are true, there is a real scientific breakthrough to be
=20
announced: the thresholds of hearing of certain kinds of distortion
=20
must be far lower than anyone thought. Who could resist the
=20
opportunity to make a famous scientific discovery? Which manufacturer
=20
would not be delighted to publish ground-breaking results?


There was a time when objectivists back in the 60s declared the new SS amps=
to be transparent due to their very low THD. But they were really really w=
rong. Could be that the world of science really isn't terribly concerned wi=
th such matters. Discovering that there were distortions in these SS amps t=
hat were not being measured didn't really make news in the scientific commu=
nity. I don't think it is any different today.=20

And let's not forget, most people in audio who are doing research that woul=
d pass peer review are mostly keeping their work under wraps. Seems in the =
world of commercial audio there is more money in using research for an adva=
ntage in the market place than there is in getting the research published.=
=20